replacing MTRG with cricket

[Jef Spaleta]

shane wrote:
> I have no problem with cricket being placed in Extras, but wouldn't 
> the same argument apply to MRTG? 

Sigh......put simply...as it stands now..if you can't convince the
specific Red Hat developer in charge of maintaining the MRTG package
that cricket is better alternative and its worth their time to stop
packaging MRTG and start maintaining cricket yer just wasting time
arguing about it here in a public forum. And if you can't find someone
interested in maintaining in as part of fedora.us right now as an add-
on...snowball's chance yer going to find someone qualified and
interested in maintaining it in Core.   If you want to see it in the
distro, package it up, put it in fedora.us and show its worth
maintaining.  The more people building and maintaining high quality
packages, the more high quality package choices there are. And don't
confuse high quality applications...with high quality packaging...
packaging itself can be a non-trivial use of time. 

Everyone interested in getting package foo into Core as a replacement
for package bar are wasting a lot of time and bandwidth  jabbering on
this list about it, right now...Fedora Extras does not formally exist...
moving things out of Core into Extras really isn't a serious thing to
talk about till Fedora Extras exists. If we continue to do this kind of
discussion one package at a time with NO technical merit guidelines/
scorecard to go by its going to me a morass of unobjective personal
opinion...every...single...time...someone wants to suggest an
alternative replacement for a package that fills a role.  That's a train
wreck. 

What would be infinitely more valuable right now...as we wait for Fedora
Extras to walk out of the vapor...is to think hard about some useful
guidelines that can be applied to packages that can be applied fairly to
determine which packages filling a functional role are worth moving into
Core. I look at the guidelines of the desktop subproject as an example
of workable guidelines that can be applied to a range of package
choices: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/desktop/defaults.html

Of course that set of guidelines isn't applicable across all
applications, but there has to be some sort of guidelines that makes
sense across distinct subsets of Core packages. And its going to make
debates about including package foo as a replacement for package bar a
lot easier if there are clear technical priorities that Core packages
should be trying to meet.  

-jef
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20040116/c1bc38b2/attachment-0002.bin